Anti-Evolution and the Church

[44Foxtrot]

US law is more politics than justice in controversial matters, look at every federal decisions of controversy, Roe V Wade, Heller V DC, MacDonald V Chicago, they are all decided by the political affiliations of the court not by justice.

Judical ruling do not = science by any means, your point is moot and your argument is by far the poorest one I have personally ever seen made.

So let me get this straight.

Virtually all the credible biologists who have published or been polled on the issue state that evolution is a fact. From every other branch of science in which data are generated that are relevant to evolution, we have support and agreement with its principles and tenets.

We see that evolution as understood from the molecular level is perfectly consistent with evolution on the level of the whole organism.

We see that evolutionary theory is powerful in accurate prediction of the outcome of experiments and observations designed to test it. We see that it is consistent with all of the available relevant data, regardless of the source.

We have written statements from the AAAS and any number of other learned scientific societies denouncing the unsupportable claims of the ID'ers and creationists with regard to evolution.

We have a US Federal Court Judge ruling in favor of a plaintiff who sued to have the teaching of ID banned in schools, finding the claims of the Discovery Institute to be fraudulent , and commenting off the record that some of their witnesses are lucky that they did not go to jail for perjury.

And yet, in spite of all of this evidence contrary to your expressed beliefs, you actually claim to know better than the scientific community and the courts. And this superior knowledge and understanding of yours comes from a creation myth made up by people who believed that humans could be possessed by demons and that the world was flat.

Is that about right?

[LDS Guy 1986]

So let me get this straight.

Virtually all the credible biologists who have published or been polled on the issue state that evolution is a fact. From every other branch of science in which data are generated that are relevant to evolution, we have support and agreement with its principles and tenets.

We see that evolution as understood from the molecular level is perfectly consistent with evolution on the level of the whole organism.

We see that evolutionary theory is powerful in accurate prediction of the outcome of experiments and observations designed to test it. We see that it is consistent with all of the available relevant data, regardless of the source.

We have written statements from the AAAS and any number of other learned scientific societies denouncing the unsupportable claims of the ID'ers and creationists with regard to evolution.

We have a US Federal Court Judge ruling in favor of a plaintiff who sued to have the teaching of ID banned in schools, finding the claims of the Discovery Institute to be fraudulent , and commenting off the record that some of their witnesses are lucky that they did not go to jail for perjury.

And yet, in spite of all of this evidence contrary to your expressed beliefs, you actually know better than the scientific community and the courts. And this superior knowledge and understanding comes from a creation myth written down by people who believed that humans could be possessed by demons and that the world was flat.

Is that about right?

I say the perfect and almighty God, Elohim, our Heavenly Father knows better, I am merely a man trying to understand his inspired words to his holy prophets better and follow there example.

Also as I stated before US Federal Judges are not impartial as I stated, judges are as more biased by politics than politicians or scientists.

Added by Edit:

And this superior knowledge and understanding comes from a creation myth written down by people who believed that humans could be possessed by demons and that the world was flat.

It is good to learn what you denounce you tool, the Bible teaches the the world is a circle (or sphere) (Isaish 40:22) and that it was suspended in space (Job 26:7) thousands of years before those educated tools in science figured those ones out.

If people would actually and humbly read the scriptures they would find the truth, but too many rather talk about it and never read it.

The Bible was right in the ancient times when men were wrong, and it is still right today when modern men are wrong.

[44Foxtrot]

It is good to learn what you denounce you tool, the Bible teaches the the world is a circle (or sphere) (Isaish 40:22) and that it was suspended in space (Job 26:7) thousands of years before those educated tools in science figured those ones out.

So now a circle is actually a sphere? I hope you are not planning a career in math or science.

BTW: In addition to me and apparenty most other scientists, exactly how many other "tools" do you believe are out there? (Just curious.)

[BCSpace]

US law is more politics than justice in controversial matters, look at every federal decisions of controversy, Roe V Wade, Heller V DC, MacDonald V Chicago, they are all decided by the political affiliations of the court not by justice.

Sure. But have you actually read the transcripts and the decision (long) in the Kitzmiller case? There's not an intellectually honest person in the world who would argue against the fact 1) ID is Creationism repackaged and 2) That there is no scientific evidence supporting ID's claims against Evolution.

Politics surely created the dispute, but it wasn't politics that decided. The ID proponents literally had nothing.

[TAO]

So now a circle is actually a sphere?

Eliptical Geometry and Hyperbolic Geometry may be able to make this happen, I think. not sure.

I hope you are not planning a career in math or science.

Computer Science, Programming.

BTW: In addition to me and apparenty most other scientists, exactly how many other "tools" do you believe are out there? (Just curious.)

We are all tools in one way or another. I can phrase my words to cause you to respond in a certain way, and that is technically making you a tool. Does it mean it's a bad thing... not really. We are all tools of others unless we don't hang around other people at all, really, imo.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[BCSpace]

Actually, if you read the link in my siggy regarding doctrine, the Church thinks it does matter. In this case, if it's doctrine it will be officially published. It wouldn't matter if it were in this case. Since evolution does not imply that man (a spirit child of God in combination with a physical body) cannot be a direct descendent of God, Elder Bowen misses the mark.

You are wrong here because to miss the big picture here, to believe in evolution one must believe that man is not made by the hand of God in God's image.

How so? I believe that God created man in his own image and used evolution to do so in the case of the physical body.

If man is the mutant descendant of another unknown common ancestor of apes then the entire validity of the scriptures is destroyed.

You don't seem to understand evolution or mutation as is usually the case with opponents of Evolution. I suggest you avail yourself to the link in my siggy.

No creation means no Adam and Eve, no Adam and Eve, means no Garden of Eden or fall, no fall means we are not here to become more like God we are just here!

I agree completely. How are any of those precluded by Evolution?

Also as Luigi stated earlier, if you believe in evolution one must also believe that God is simply a part of that evolution.

Why would that be a problem?

That man made God to help him though things he couldn't understand till he evolved enough to figure things out on his own.

That is an atheist conclusion but Evolution doesn't imply it.

Evolution (as a whole) can never be compatible with religion, it destroyed the basis of the Plan of Salvation and mortal life as professed by all religions.

You keep making these claims but you never provide evidence to back them up.

[Rivers]

I think you need to reread the quote you posted, there was no mention of leaving science to the scientist, it said that many of these scientific issues have no impact on salvation so the Church has no care since it's mission from God is to win souls to Christ and save mankind. You really take this out of context and ignore the various times that the Church has made stances on this that science refutes (such as homosexuality and same sex marriage) but the Church still steps in and says this is the will of God.

Believe me if the Church left science to the scientists like you said there would be no controversy in our Church, but yet you are wrong and the Church does take stances on issue of scientific matters when it enters there domain. Almost every time this happens it causes much controversy for the Church but as we are taught the Prophet reveals the will of the lord, and we put our faith in that even if man refutes is, if we hold to the will of the Lord do we will eventually be vindicated, God promises us this!.

The prophets don't have the best track record in revealing scientific information to us. Joseph Fielding Smith said that man would never go to the moon. Many also taught that all Native Americans are descended from Isrealites. This has also been proven to be dead wrong through DNA studies. I'm gonna stick with real scientists for science.

[thesometimesaint]

Rivers:

My favorite one is that Pi is exactly equal to 3. Any school child in the fifth grade can tell you it is 3.14...

I still accept the writers of the Bible as prophets of God, even if they can't be as perfect as ETB.

See 14 guidelines no. 5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

[Jeff K.]

People who bring up that because a prophet speculated on such a scientific position or another in order to attack the church, well what can you say other than stop being stupid. We as saints have not seen the question of evolution placed into our Doctrine and Covenants, so they are not part of our doctrine, nor is their disbelief a covenant.

We as saints do not base our science and scientific methodology upon the call of prophets. We do check our moral compass every now and then to ensure that the doctrine and prophets have us traveling in the right direction. It may mean we don't abort babies to experiment on them, but it also means that we will research cadavers and study with greater depth the evolutionary process as we understand them.

As to evolution, it is the basic tenet of our church, we speak of learning line by line, precept by precept, with a more clear understanding of Gods will as we evolve spiritually. Indeed we are a product of spiritual and physical evolution as we have changed dramatically from what we once were to what we are, and we hope to evolve even more in the future. One cannot argue Mormons are against evolution since it is burned into our very doctrine. The question is whether the theories of evolution as we understand them on a mortal plain are exactly as the theories state. That we cannot know for certain, nor does that uncertainty lead to dismissal. It seems that no one is or should be arguing about the map, just the proposed route we may have taken and the route. It has nothing to do with the person who made the map, or where our proposed destiny should be.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Maybe, but facts are facts. We can't change them just because we don't like them.

I have never liked making such bold statements in theological debates, in so doing it seeks to shut down any opposing views. Other things it is fine to have strongly held convictions. For instance

[LDS Guy 1986]

The prophets don't have the best track record in revealing scientific information to us. Joseph Fielding Smith said that man would never go to the moon. Many also taught that all Native Americans are descended from Isrealites. This has also been proven to be dead wrong through DNA studies. I'm gonna stick with real scientists for science.

The opinion of a prophet is not inspired, and you of all should know this. But the OT tells us in Isaiah that the earth is round not flat thousands of years before science though let alone proved this, we are told in Job that the Earth is suspended in space not held up by pillars like believed still for thousands of years after this revelation. You also have the various health laws in Exodus that made no sense to the Israelis at the time but help protect them from various diseases that was very deadly in there times.

And if you want to get picky about modern prophets, do not forget that the Prophet Joseph Smith was revealed the dangers of tobacco, alcohol, tea, and coffee almost a century before modern science discovered this.

He also through God revealed that man should eat grain and veggie in abundance and meats sparingly, as modern nutritionists tell us.

When God speaks through his prophets, he is right every time.

When man speaks on his own, this isn't the case.

Added by edit:

The only real scientist is God, he is the only being with all the understanding, men who study science only have a tiny fraction of the understanding that God does. I will follow the will of the Lord over the best guess of man any day. But to each there own, I just think anyone who assumes that God is not a scientist is very misinformed.

[kolipoki09]

The opinion of a prophet is not inspired, and you of all should know this. But the OT tells us in Isaiah that the earth is round not flat thousands of years before science though let alone proved this, we are told in Job that the Earth is suspended in space not held up by pillars like believed still for thousands of years after this revelation. You also have the various health laws in Exodus that made no sense to the Israelis at the time but help protect them from various diseases that was very deadly in there times.

And if you want to get picky about modern prophets, do not forget that the Prophet Joseph Smith was revealed the dangers of tobacco, alcohol, tea, and coffee almost a century before modern science discovered this.

He also through God revealed that man should eat grain and veggie in abundance and meats sparingly, as modern nutritionists tell us.

When God speaks through his prophets, he is right every time.

When man speaks on his own, this isn't the case.

Added by edit:

The only real scientist is God, he is the only being with all the understanding, men who study science only have a tiny fraction of the understanding that God does. I will follow the will of the Lord over the best guess of man any day. But to each there own, I just think anyone who assumes that God is not a scientist is very misinformed.

No one, and I mean no one on this board thread is assuming "that God is not a scientist." Of course men who study science only have a "tiny fraction" of the understanding God has, but that is not to say that science can and ought to be dismissed because there is a higher power who knows better.

If you appeal to the OT as a precedent for how the earth was brought into existence, you must also accept that not all accounts of the creation and nature of the world given in the OT are in harmony either. Once again, the Israelites did not view the earth as spherical, no matter how much you'd like to exercise your well-practiced eisegesis.

Has God definitively closed the book on evolution? Has God literally spoken through His prophets signifying without a doubt that evolution is false and Satan-inspired, and that the earth is literally 6,000 years old? Is evolution really just part of a vast atheist conspiracy meant to confuse people into believing there is no God?

There are hundreds and thousands of God-fearing scientists who accept evolution and have maintained their faith.

With evolution, we're able to clearly observe it. Your petty curtsy around it by pointing out "missing links" (i.e. intermediate fossils) is a tried and true ID/Creationist trick that has not stood the test of time. Look at it this way.

Suppose you have a piece of paper, and on that piece of paper you have the numbers 1-100 listed in order. The paper containing the numbers is then torn up and scattered to the wind. Over time, people begin to find the scraps of paper and begin to piece it together. They notice the numbers, some of which line up perfectly together along their edges. 78 and 79 lined up together, as did 45 and 46, 21-27, 84 and 85. Some numbers are still missing, but when laid out on a table, it isn't hard to piece together what you're looking at.

ID/Creationists have sought to point out the missing pieces as evidence that evolution isn't true, while at the same time accepting (and requiring) a literal belief in the accounts of the biblical creation, ignoring and dismissing any information contrary to those assertions.

I'm perfectly aware of Joseph Smith's revelation on the Word of Wisdom. That did not keep him from smoking, drinking coffee, or drinking alcohol throughout the remainder of his life (most notably during his final hours at Carthage).

The term "modern nutritionist" is very vague. Some might agree with the Word of Wisdom, and others not...which brings me back to my original point.

The LDS Church does not accept or reject evolution. Some General Authorities insist on a literal reading of the accounts of creation (i.e. Elder Bowen, JFS) and others have (at least in the past) been rather open to the idea (i.e. Talmage, Roberts, Eyring, Scott). Let us therefore, not assume that the Church accepts it either way, but rather observe the law in action, seek to understand it, and draw our conclusions based upon that information.

[Hughes]

Sure. But have you actually read the transcripts and the decision (long) in the Kitzmiller case? There's not an intellectually honest person in the world who would argue against the fact 1) ID is Creationism repackaged and 2) That there is no scientific evidence supporting ID's claims against Evolution.

Politics surely created the dispute, but it wasn't politics that decided. The ID proponents literally had nothing.

Just don't look behind the curtain, because the Evolutionists have even less.

[consiglieri]

US law is more politics than justice in controversial matters, look at every federal decisions of controversy, Roe V Wade, Heller V DC, MacDonald V Chicago, they are all decided by the political affiliations of the court not by justice.

Okay, so you don't agree with U.S. jurisprudence.

Fair enough.

But in order to convince me you are being intellectually honest, you must grapple in some manner with the Brigham Young quotes I have provided in which the second president and prophet of the Church states he does not believe man was literally created from the dust of the earth.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

Why does anyone have to grapple with Brigham Young quotes? Why does anyone have to grapple with the opinion of prophets versus the doctrine?

[WalkerW]

No one, and I mean no one on this board thread is assuming "that God is not a scientist." Of course men who study science only have a "tiny fraction" of the understanding God has, but that is not to say that science can and ought to be dismissed because there is a higher power who knows better.

If you appeal to the OT as a precedent for how the earth was brought into existence, you must also accept that not all accounts of the creation and nature of the world given in the OT are in harmony either. Once again, the Israelites did not view the earth as spherical, no matter how much you'd like to exercise your well-practiced eisegesis.

Has God definitively closed the book on evolution? Has God literally spoken through His prophets signifying without a doubt that evolution is false and Satan-inspired, and that the earth is literally 6,000 years old? Is evolution really just part of a vast atheist conspiracy meant to confuse people into believing there is no God?

There are hundreds and thousands of God-fearing scientists who accept evolution and have maintained their faith.

With evolution, we're able to clearly observe it. Your petty curtsy around it by pointing out "missing links" (i.e. intermediate fossils) is a tried and true ID/Creationist trick that has not stood the test of time. Look at it this way.

Suppose you have a piece of paper, and on that piece of paper you have the numbers 1-100 listed in order. The paper containing the numbers is then torn up and scattered to the wind. Over time, people begin to find the scraps of paper and begin to piece it together. They notice the numbers, some of which line up perfectly together along their edges. 78 and 79 lined up together, as did 45 and 46, 21-27, 84 and 85. Some numbers are still missing, but when laid out on a table, it isn't hard to piece together what you're looking at.

ID/Creationists have sought to point out the missing pieces as evidence that evolution isn't true, while at the same time accepting (and requiring) a literal belief in the accounts of the biblical creation, ignoring and dismissing any information contrary to those assertions.

I'm perfectly aware of Joseph Smith's revelation on the Word of Wisdom. That did not keep him from smoking, drinking coffee, or drinking alcohol throughout the remainder of his life (most notably during his final hours at Carthage).

The term "modern nutritionist" is very vague. Some might agree with the Word of Wisdom, and others not...which brings me back to my original point.

The LDS Church does not accept or reject evolution. Some General Authorities insist on a literal reading of the accounts of creation (i.e. Elder Bowen, JFS) and others have (at least in the past) been rather open to the idea (i.e. Talmage, Roberts, Eyring, Scott). Let us therefore, not assume that the Church accepts it either way, but rather observe the law in action, seek to understand it, and draw our conclusions based upon that information.

Dawkins has another analogy about detectives solving a murder despite missing video footage. But alas, he's a damned liar and hypocrite, thus we can't trust any analogy that comes out of his mouth.

I'm really quite surprised that one cannot separate The God Delusion from The Greatest Show on Earth.

[WalkerW]

I also have a number of videos on evolution on my blog post entitled "Apes Riding Horses." You're all more than welcome to read the entire post, though it is a couple years old and less polished. The videos are great though.

EDIT: Random information - the post's title comes from Everybody Loves Raymond, in which Planet of the Apes is described as "apes riding horses." However, I think the actual line is "monkeys riding horses." Oh, well.

[consiglieri]

Why does anyone have to grapple with Brigham Young quotes?

No reason whatsoever.

As long as one is not a member of the church over which he was the second president and sustained prophet, seer and revelator.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

I think it is that we state publicly that prophets are fallible and some members of the Church don't personally believe it.

[Jeff K.]

Consig doesn't accept that sometimessaint. He prefers to project upon the members a type of limited reasoning. It makes it easier for him to attack the church and those who are members. Shrug, he wants us to be handicapped, that way he can intellectually cherry pick rather than truly grapple intellectually.

He's lazy.

[consiglieri]

Consig doesn't accept that sometimessaint. He prefers to project upon the members a type of limited reasoning. It makes it easier for him to attack the church and those who are members. Shrug, he wants us to be handicapped, that way he can intellectually cherry pick rather than truly grapple intellectually.

He's lazy.

It is gratifying that my mere presence in a thread can evoke such hostility as to get it closed down.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

Consig

What you are doing is intellectually lazy. And it is disengenuous for you to shift the blame to someone else for your actions. It is well known that we as Latter Day Saints do not accept all things from the mouth of Brigham as doctrine. Everyone here knows that. Even you know that.

So we are back to your lazy intellectual attempts to bait (just as your last post does).

You may be gratified in baiting people, and attempting to undermine members with a false premise. But you should also be called on it when you try it.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Dawkins has another analogy about detectives solving a murder despite missing video footage. But alas, he's a damned liar and hypocrite, thus we can't trust any analogy that comes out of his mouth.

I'm really quite surprised that one cannot separate The God Delusion from The Greatest Show on Earth.

And those cases while "solved" according to the police without physical evidence rarely stand in court and if you do get a conviction most are overturned in appeals.

If you are going to use such a lame analogy you have to look at the whole justice system, the Detective can know all he want's without a confession, eyewitness (direct observation), or physical evidence, the DA will never try the case. Detectives don't determine guilt a jury does, and that jury is subject to appeals if the defense feels the jury or prosecution were not acting properly.

So in case of evolution, this analogy is more against evolution, since the proponents seek to ignore or undermine the legitimate claims and critiques of the opponents. In a court of law this is called suppression of evidence and it misconduct on behalf of the prosecution that is grounds for the ruling to be overturned on appeal. So like most things with Dawkins if he actually engaged his brain impartially as a scientist, instead of playing biased partisan, he would see how his analogy is against him just like his theories are not supported by the data.

[WalkerW]

And those cases while "solved" according to the police without physical evidence rarely stand in court and if you do get a conviction most are overturned in appeals.

If you are going to use such a lame analogy you have to look at the whole justice system, the Detective can know all he want's without a confession, eyewitness (direct observation), or physical evidence, the DA will never try the case. Detectives don't determine guilt a jury does, and that jury is subject to appeals if the defense feels the jury or prosecution were not acting properly.

So in case of evolution, this analogy is more against evolution, since the proponents seek to ignore or undermine the legitimate claims and critiques of the opponents. In a court of law this is called suppression of evidence and it misconduct on behalf of the prosecution that is grounds for the ruling to be overturned on appeal. So like most things with Dawkins if he actually engaged his brain impartially as a scientist, instead of playing biased partisan, he would see how his analogy is against him just like his theories are not supported by the data.

I suggest actually reading the book for the analogy and evidence instead of acting like you understand the complete argument.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Maybe. But I normally don't go for calling people names, other than their on screen avatar. I'll let consiglieri speak for himself.

Personally, he nearly always makes me think more deeply about a subject than I usually want to do, and that is good. For instance I am very literal(probably too much so), and if something can't be scientifically supported I am far too quick to find fault or dismiss the religious arguments. On this subject I took it as a personal challenge to see if I was unnecessarily rejecting the words of people I believe to prophets of God.